Author
Topic: Catholic annulments (Read 1719 times)

My friend was married once in her early 20's. She was able to get that marriage annulled. She is now divorcing her second husband. They were married in Vegas, then later had their marriage blessed in the Catholic church. She wants to seek an annulment for that marriage as well. They have 3 children together. At the moment she is living with another man (who is also Catholic and seeking an annulment from his ex-wife but not because they intend to wed). Is it difficult to get 2 annulments in the Catholic church? Is there a way for anyone to even know she had the first one to begin with if she doesn't mention it?

I understand why an annulment takes place. I am just wondering how/if they are recorded.

Her claim is that he didn't adhere to his vows. Technically they still are married since they aren't divorced yet, but they will have been married 16 years when she seeks an annulment.

Not adhering to his vows is different than making the vows without intending to keep them, which is more like what an annulment is supposed to be for. Like for example, if he agreed to marry as a Catholic with the proper intention of having children, but then told his wife he was having a vasectomy so they couldn't have any. Or if he turned out to already be married. Something that would mean he never properly intended to have a real marriage and thus they were not really sacramentally married.

But just failing to live up to the vows he took with the intention of keeping them - tough darts; that just means he's not a very good husband. But he's still a husband.

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Her claim is that he didn't adhere to his vows. Technically they still are married since they aren't divorced yet, but they will have been married 16 years when she seeks an annulment.

Not adhering to his vows is different than making the vows without intending to keep them, which is more like what an annulment is supposed to be for. Like for example, if he agreed to marry as a Catholic with the proper intention of having children, but then told his wife he was having a vasectomy so they couldn't have any. Or if he turned out to already be married. Something that would mean he never properly intended to have a real marriage and thus they were not really sacramentally married.

But just failing to live up to the vows he took with the intention of keeping them - tough darts; that just means he's not a very good husband. But he's still a husband.

Speaking solely as an Orthodox Christian, one person's annulment is another person's divorce. No insult intended but if one were to read all the stories about annulments especially the more famous celebrities it makes on wonder a bit about the sincerity of what annulment is all about. One personal experience is my close neighbor who was married for more than 10 years and BOTH were deeply in love at least in the beginning years. But after 3 kids she decided that the marriage wasn't working, of which reasons I am not privy to, but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs. I'm convinced that this is just another ploy on the part of the Vatican to ease one or the other out of a bad, sensitive situation. Declaring there was never a marriage places a cloud of despair over any offspring that may result from these marriages.The man is now married to another Catholic who is also the result of an annulment.......crazy world...And has been blessed by their priest.

Speaking solely as an Orthodox Christian, one person's annulment is another person's divorce. No insult intended but if one were to read all the stories about annulments especially the more famous celebrities it makes on wonder a bit about the sincerity of what annulment is all about. One personal experience is my close neighbor who was married for more than 10 years and BOTH were deeply in love at least in the beginning years. But after 3 kids she decided that the marriage wasn't working, of which reasons I am not privy to, but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs. I'm convinced that this is just another ploy on the part of the Vatican to ease one or the other out of a bad, sensitive situation. Declaring there was never a marriage places a cloud of despair over any offspring that may result from these marriages.The man is now married to another Catholic who is also the result of an annulment.......crazy world...And has been blessed by their priest.

For what seems the 100th time: an annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marraige never took place due to a defect in form or intent. It is not a statement that a legal marriage never took place and does not mean the kid are bastards.

Speaking solely as an Orthodox Christian, one person's annulment is another person's divorce. No insult intended but if one were to read all the stories about annulments especially the more famous celebrities it makes on wonder a bit about the sincerity of what annulment is all about. One personal experience is my close neighbor who was married for more than 10 years and BOTH were deeply in love at least in the beginning years. But after 3 kids she decided that the marriage wasn't working, of which reasons I am not privy to, but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs. I'm convinced that this is just another ploy on the part of the Vatican to ease one or the other out of a bad, sensitive situation. Declaring there was never a marriage places a cloud of despair over any offspring that may result from these marriages.The man is now married to another Catholic who is also the result of an annulment.......crazy world...And has been blessed by their priest.

For what seems the 100th time: an annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marraige never took place due to a defect in form or intent. It is not a statement that a legal marriage never took place and does not mean the kid are bastards.

taking it to its logical conclusion means that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

On what grounds is she seeking an "annulment" rather than just a divorce?

probably because she needs an excuse, why would *anyone* seek an annulment if they didn't truly want a divorce?

To get an "annullment" the Qurban factories require that you get a civil divorce first and prove it. I know that rule in Chicago, elsewhere, and I think it pretty much is required world wide.

Btw, if someone defrauds a follower of the Vatican, having concealed a prior divorce that hasn't been annulled by the Qurban witch doctors, the marriage can be found void by the US courts, if the follower can prove their adherence to the Vatican's teaching.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 12:05:10 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

^^I have several Catholic friends who are troubled by issues regarding the legitimacy of children in such cases. I know that civil annulment does not make the issue of the annulled marriage illegitimate and I suspect that the Catholic church's Canon position is the same regarding children born during a canonically annulled marriage. (In other words the children are not made bastards.) However the legalism can be of little comfort to those impacted.

^^I have several Catholic friends who are troubled by issues regarding the legitimacy of children in such cases. I know that civil annulment does not make the issue of the annulled marriage illegitimate and I suspect that the Catholic church's Canon position is the same regarding children born during a canonically annulled marriage. (In other words the children are not made bastards.) However the legalism can be of little comfort to those impacted.

illegitimacy has pretty much been down away with, under the rubric of Equal Protection (Stanley v. Illinois). So, as far as the law is concerned, we'd have to look at something it recognizes, like child support: in the case of an annulled marriage, there is case law that requires the children of a prior, legitimate marriage be taken care off, and the children of the annulled marriage be provided out of what is left (which isn't much in a lot of cases).

In the case of the Vatican's canon law, I'm not sure that illegitimacy exists in it any more. It used to be that illegitimate sons, for instance, could not be ordained-an issue for how valid Pope Clement's authority to refuse an annullment for Henry.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Speaking solely as an Orthodox Christian, one person's annulment is another person's divorce. No insult intended but if one were to read all the stories about annulments especially the more famous celebrities it makes on wonder a bit about the sincerity of what annulment is all about. One personal experience is my close neighbor who was married for more than 10 years and BOTH were deeply in love at least in the beginning years. But after 3 kids she decided that the marriage wasn't working, of which reasons I am not privy to, but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs. I'm convinced that this is just another ploy on the part of the Vatican to ease one or the other out of a bad, sensitive situation. Declaring there was never a marriage places a cloud of despair over any offspring that may result from these marriages.The man is now married to another Catholic who is also the result of an annulment.......crazy world...And has been blessed by their priest.

For what seems the 100th time: an annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marraige never took place due to a defect in form or intent. It is not a statement that a legal marriage never took place and does not mean the kid are bastards.

taking it to its logical conclusion means that.

No it doesn't. Bastardy is a legal concept defined as children born outside of a legal marriage. The Catholic Church is not denying a legal marriage took place, which is why a civil divorce is required before an annulment can procede. The Catholic Church also reiterates in canon law that the children of annulments are legitimate.

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

In the case of the Vatican's canon law, I'm not sure that illegitimacy exists in it any more. It used to be that illegitimate sons, for instance, could not be ordained-an issue for how valid Pope Clement's authority to refuse an annullment for Henry.

It does not and even when it did it was an impediment that could be dispensed from by the bishop for minor orders and the pope for major.

Speaking solely as an Orthodox Christian, one person's annulment is another person's divorce. No insult intended but if one were to read all the stories about annulments especially the more famous celebrities it makes on wonder a bit about the sincerity of what annulment is all about. One personal experience is my close neighbor who was married for more than 10 years and BOTH were deeply in love at least in the beginning years. But after 3 kids she decided that the marriage wasn't working, of which reasons I am not privy to, but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs. I'm convinced that this is just another ploy on the part of the Vatican to ease one or the other out of a bad, sensitive situation. Declaring there was never a marriage places a cloud of despair over any offspring that may result from these marriages.The man is now married to another Catholic who is also the result of an annulment.......crazy world...And has been blessed by their priest.

For what seems the 100th time: an annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marraige never took place due to a defect in form or intent. It is not a statement that a legal marriage never took place and does not mean the kid are bastards.

taking it to its logical conclusion means that.

No it doesn't. Bastardy is a legal concept defined as children born outside of a legal marriage. The Catholic Church is not denying a legal marriage took place, which is why a civil divorce is required before an annulment can procede. The Catholic Church also reiterates in canon law that the children of annulments are legitimate.

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

Yes, and Pastor Aeternus while making the pope of Rome supreme pontiff and super-bishop claims that it safeguards the episcopacy of each bishop. No, I don't buy that either.

The Vatican did not start with Vatican II

Quote

The Defect of Birth(ILLEGITIMACY)A canonical impediment to ordination. When used in this connection, the word illegitimate has, in canon law, a well-defined meaning, which is: "born out of lawful wedlock". Illegitimate birth is an impediment to the reception of orders, and inhibits the exercise of the functions of orders already received. It is a canonical impediment, because established and laid down in the canon law as a hindrance to entering the clerical state. This prohibition does not touch the validity of orders, but makes the reception of them illicit. It extends to first tonsure. The inhibition that is set up is restricted to the functions that belong exclusively to the clergy. In the early ages of the Church no law prevented the ordination of illegitimates. They were then, sometimes, debarred from ordination, but only because of a real or supposed depravity of life. Pope Urban II (1088-99) prohibited the ordination of the illegitimate offspring of clerics, unless they became members of approved religious orders. The Council of Poitiers, under Paschal II (1099-1118), extended this prohibition to all persons of illegitimate birth. These regulations were later approved by other popes and councils.

The law as laid down in the Decretals of Gregory IX (I, X) mentions only the offspring of clerics and those begotten in fornication. But in the sixth book of the Decretals all persons of illegitimate birth are expressly included. These may be ranged in the following classes: (1) Natural illegitimates, or the offspring of parents who at the time of the birth or conception of such offspring, were capable of contracting Christian marriage. (2) Spurious illegitimates, or those born of a known mother and an unknown father — unknown because the mother had carnal relations with several men. (3) Adulterine illegitimates, those begotten of parents, one or both of whom, at the time of conception and birth of such offspring, were lawfully married to a third person. (4) Incest illegitimates, or persons whose parents could not marry because of an invalidating impediment of consanguinity or affinity. (5) Sacrilegious illegitimates, or the offspring of parents who are restrained from marriage because of the impediment of Holy orders or solemn religious vows. The practice of the present day also holds as illegitimates abandoned children of unknown parentage. Legitimacy may not be presumed or established by negative proof. Positive documentary evidence must be adduced.

The law of illegitimacy directly debars all the foregoing classes of persons from promotion to orders, and the exercise of the functions proper to the orders already received; and it indirectly prevents such persons from obtaining a benefice. Directly, also, it prevents them from obtaining certain benefices, for the Council of Trent (Sess. 25, c. 15 de ref.) Decreed that the illegitimate children of clerics should be incapacitated from obtaining any kind of a benefice in the Church where their fathers held one; from rendering any service in said church; and from receiving any pensions on the revenues of the paternal benefice. This law is not established and laid down as a punishment for the person to whom it is applied. It safeguards the honour and dignity of Holy orders. The clerical state which has the dispensing of the mysteries of God must be beyond reproach. No stain should be upon it, no blame possible. Therefore the Church raises the barrier of illegitimacy before the entrance to the priesthood. Thus the crime of the parents is held up to just reprobation, and is condemned even in the lives of their offspring. The danger of the father's incontinence being continued in the life of the son is greatly lessened, for strong indications of purity of life must be given before the door of God's ministry can be opened.

The defect of illegitimate birth may be cured in four ways: (1) By the subsequent marriage of the parents; (2) By a rescript of the pope; (3) By religious profession; (4) By a dispensation.

(1) The subsequent marriage of the parents of an illegitimate has, by a fiction of law, a retroactive power which carries the marriage back to the time of the birth of the offspring and covers it with lawful wedlock. In order that the fiction of law may produce this effect, the parents, at the time of the conception or, at least, at the birth of such offspring, must have been capable of contracting lawful marriage. Therefore, this more of legitimation is applicable only to natural illegitimates. And these, though legitimized by the subsequent marriage of the parents, or even by an Apostolic dispensation, are forever excluded from the dignity of the cardinalate. (2) A rescript of the pope confers legitimacy in so far as it is required for spiritual affairs throughout the universal Church. (3) Religious profession in an approved order cures the defect of illegitimacy. Religious profession is the taking of the solemn religious vows; but the simple vows taken after the noviciate in some orders produce a like effect. This mode of legitimation only renders illegitimates capable of ordination. It cannot be extended to dignities or even to regular prelacies. Hence, illegitimates thus legitimized are still debarred from the position of abbot; and women of illegitimate birth, for like reasons, cannot hold the position of abbess or prioress. (4) A dispensation granted by a lawful superior removes the defect of illegitimate birth, but only for some express purpose. It is not a mode of absolute legitimation. The purposes for which it is granted must be specified; as for promotion to minor orders, to major orders, to a specified benefice.

A dispensation of this kind runs counter to the common law. It is of strict interpretation, and therefore cannot be extended from like to like or from greater to less, unless the one is included in, and presupposes, the other. Such is the case when a dispensation is conceded to an illegitimate to receive Holy orders. Such orders require a title, and this title is, in canon law, a benefice. The pope is the lawful superior for the universal Church, and as such he can dispense in all cases where a dispensation is possible. Bishops and other prelates having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction can dispense their own subjects, in this matter, for first tonsure, minor orders, or a simple benefice; but not for major orders, even though the illegitimacy be occult. This episcopal, or quasi-episcopal, jurisdiction does not extend to a benefice which was immediately possessed by the father of the person seeking the dispensation, nor to a benefice which by custom or privilege requires its possessor to be in major orders.Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In the case of the Vatican's canon law, I'm not sure that illegitimacy exists in it any more. It used to be that illegitimate sons, for instance, could not be ordained-an issue for how valid Pope Clement's authority to refuse an annullment for Henry.

It does not and even when it did it was an impediment that could be dispensed from by the bishop for minor orders and the pope for major.

Like I said, the question is moot, as it seems no such thing as illegitimacy exists in canon law anymore. So whether the child of a life long marital union, a divorce, an "annulled" marriage, an adulterous affair, a one night stand...whatever, no difference is recognized anymore.

of course, as Podkaparski stated, the child in question knows better.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 01:02:02 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Speaking solely as an Orthodox Christian, one person's annulment is another person's divorce. No insult intended but if one were to read all the stories about annulments especially the more famous celebrities it makes on wonder a bit about the sincerity of what annulment is all about. One personal experience is my close neighbor who was married for more than 10 years and BOTH were deeply in love at least in the beginning years. But after 3 kids she decided that the marriage wasn't working, of which reasons I am not privy to, but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs. I'm convinced that this is just another ploy on the part of the Vatican to ease one or the other out of a bad, sensitive situation. Declaring there was never a marriage places a cloud of despair over any offspring that may result from these marriages.The man is now married to another Catholic who is also the result of an annulment.......crazy world...And has been blessed by their priest.

For what seems the 100th time: an annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marraige never took place due to a defect in form or intent. It is not a statement that a legal marriage never took place and does not mean the kid are bastards.

taking it to its logical conclusion means that.

No it doesn't. Bastardy is a legal concept defined as children born outside of a legal marriage. The Catholic Church is not denying a legal marriage took place, which is why a civil divorce is required before an annulment can procede. The Catholic Church also reiterates in canon law that the children of annulments are legitimate.

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

This is consistent with long standing Anglo-American jurisprudence, under both the common law and statutory formulation in the states.

In the case of the Vatican's canon law, I'm not sure that illegitimacy exists in it any more. It used to be that illegitimate sons, for instance, could not be ordained-an issue for how valid Pope Clement's authority to refuse an annullment for Henry.

It does not and even when it did it was an impediment that could be dispensed from by the bishop for minor orders and the pope for major.

Like I said, the question is moot, as it seems no such thing as illegitimacy exists in canon law anymore. So whether the child of a life long marital union, a divorce, an "annulled" marriage, an adulterous affair, a one night stand...whatever, no difference is recognized anymore.

of course, as Podkaparski stated, the child in question knows better.

Its too legalistic for my pea brain so I will suffice to say I stick by my original take on this......and let it go, for now.

Wait, why are we clamoring for the reinstatement of classifying kids as illegitimate? It was a ridiculous law to begin with. And its not like it is Patristic teaching or anything, is it (I HOPE NOT!)? Isn't it some form of misguided puritanism?

Like I said, the question is moot, as it seems no such thing as illegitimacy exists in canon law anymore. So whether the child of a life long marital union, a divorce, an "annulled" marriage, an adulterous affair, a one night stand...whatever, no difference is recognized anymore.

Not exactly, if Canon Law states that children of valid or putative marriages are legitimate, it implies those born outside of them are illegitimate. It simply no longer makes this an impediment to Holy Orders.

Speaking solely as an Orthodox Christian, one person's annulment is another person's divorce. No insult intended but if one were to read all the stories about annulments especially the more famous celebrities it makes on wonder a bit about the sincerity of what annulment is all about. One personal experience is my close neighbor who was married for more than 10 years and BOTH were deeply in love at least in the beginning years. But after 3 kids she decided that the marriage wasn't working, of which reasons I am not privy to, but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs. I'm convinced that this is just another ploy on the part of the Vatican to ease one or the other out of a bad, sensitive situation. Declaring there was never a marriage places a cloud of despair over any offspring that may result from these marriages.The man is now married to another Catholic who is also the result of an annulment.......crazy world...And has been blessed by their priest.

For what seems the 100th time: an annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marraige never took place due to a defect in form or intent. It is not a statement that a legal marriage never took place and does not mean the kid are bastards.

taking it to its logical conclusion means that.

No it doesn't. Bastardy is a legal concept defined as children born outside of a legal marriage. The Catholic Church is not denying a legal marriage took place, which is why a civil divorce is required before an annulment can procede. The Catholic Church also reiterates in canon law that the children of annulments are legitimate.

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

This is consistent with long standing Anglo-American jurisprudence, under both the common law and statutory formulation in the states.

When are any children considered illegitimate anymore in Anglo-American jurisprudence?

Long standing means, in this case, only a couple decades at most: Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 was decided in 1972

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Like I said, the question is moot, as it seems no such thing as illegitimacy exists in canon law anymore. So whether the child of a life long marital union, a divorce, an "annulled" marriage, an adulterous affair, a one night stand...whatever, no difference is recognized anymore.

Not exactly, if Canon Law states that children of valid or putative marriages are legitimate, it implies those born outside of them are illegitimate. It simply no longer makes this an impediment to Holy Orders.

and what meaning does "illegitimacy" have now in the Vatican's canon law?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Wait, why are we clamoring for the reinstatement of classifying kids as illegitimate? It was a ridiculous law to begin with. And its not like it is Patristic teaching or anything, is it (I HOPE NOT!)? Isn't it some form of misguided puritanism?

one would have to investigate the relationship between the disappearance of the stigma of bearing children out of wedlock, and the rise in the numbers of children born out of wedlock-now approaching half in most of what is called Christendom. 55–74% in Latin America (although the non-existence of common law marriage has a part in pushing up the numbers).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Like I said, the question is moot, as it seems no such thing as illegitimacy exists in canon law anymore. So whether the child of a life long marital union, a divorce, an "annulled" marriage, an adulterous affair, a one night stand...whatever, no difference is recognized anymore.

Not exactly, if Canon Law states that children of valid or putative marriages are legitimate, it implies those born outside of them are illegitimate. It simply no longer makes this an impediment to Holy Orders.

and what meaning does "illegitimacy" have now in the Vatican's canon law?

I don't know. What meaning does illegitiamcy have in society or law in general? It is a word that means your parents weren't lawfully married. Given the number of children born out of wedlock these days it is a word that means nothing.

Like I said, the question is moot, as it seems no such thing as illegitimacy exists in canon law anymore. So whether the child of a life long marital union, a divorce, an "annulled" marriage, an adulterous affair, a one night stand...whatever, no difference is recognized anymore.

Not exactly, if Canon Law states that children of valid or putative marriages are legitimate, it implies those born outside of them are illegitimate. It simply no longer makes this an impediment to Holy Orders.

and what meaning does "illegitimacy" have now in the Vatican's canon law?

I don't know. What meaning does illegitiamcy have in society or law in general? It is a word that means your parents weren't lawfully married. Given the number of children born out of wedlock these days it is a word that means nothing.

Then marriage means nothing. Which, of course, modern society is desperately trying to prove.

There is a difference saying children are legitimate, when illegitimacy exists as a category, and saying they are legitimate, when there is no such thing as illegitimacy.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 01:58:07 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Putative (Latin, putativus supposed) signifies that which is commonly thought, reputed, or believed. A putative marriage, consequently, in canon law is a matrimonial alliance which is commonly reputed to be valid, and is sincerely believed by one at least of the contracting parties to be so in the eyes of the Church, because entered into in good faith; but which in reality is null and void, owing to the existence of a diriment impediment. The Church too in her external forum recognizes such a marriage, until its invalidity be proved; and concedes to the children born thereof the rights of legitimacy.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12584a.htm

Like I said, the question is moot, as it seems no such thing as illegitimacy exists in canon law anymore. So whether the child of a life long marital union, a divorce, an "annulled" marriage, an adulterous affair, a one night stand...whatever, no difference is recognized anymore.

Not exactly, if Canon Law states that children of valid or putative marriages are legitimate, it implies those born outside of them are illegitimate. It simply no longer makes this an impediment to Holy Orders.

and what meaning does "illegitimacy" have now in the Vatican's canon law?

I don't know. What meaning does illegitiamcy have in society or law in general?

Royal Succession. A successor to a royal throne is usually born in wedlock.

Putative (Latin, putativus supposed) signifies that which is commonly thought, reputed, or believed. A putative marriage, consequently, in canon law is a matrimonial alliance which is commonly reputed to be valid, and is sincerely believed by one at least of the contracting parties to be so in the eyes of the Church, because entered into in good faith; but which in reality is null and void, owing to the existence of a diriment impediment. The Church too in her external forum recognizes such a marriage, until its invalidity be proved; and concedes to the children born thereof the rights of legitimacy.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12584a.htm

the children are thrilled.

In which case, there really is no marriage, as no one can know for certain that some "diriment impediment" isn't lurking down deep, ready at any moment to be dug up or erupt and burst out into the open and render the whole thing null and void.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Then marriage means nothing. Which, of course, modern society is desperately trying to prove.

There is a difference saying children are legitimate, when illegitimacy exists as a category, and saying they are legitimate, when there is no such thing as illegitimacy.

I don't believe marriage is harmed by not branding children bastards.

Is it helped by calling divorces "annulments"?

and the children aren't helped by being told they are "legitimate." Particularly, as you said, when it has no meaning.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 02:34:17 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

and the children aren't helped by being told they are "legitimate." Particularly, as you said, when it has no meaning.

Not every annulment is a "divorce", i.e. mom and dad are sick of each other. Some times there really are invalidating impediments that even the Orthodox would recognize. But when there aren't and mom and dad can't make it work for whateve reason I wish my Church would adopt the Orthodox use of economy. But as you say none of that matters to a child seeing his world turned upside down.

but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs.

And what does that matter and why is that such a bad thing? My parents had me before they were married. I'm an "illegitimate bastard." Why do you act as if it is something so sad to be ashamed of? I find it very offensive actually when people say things like this, acting as if it were so serious or bad or stigmatized. Get over it. There is no such thing as legitimacy or illegitimacy. Just because two adults failed at marriage shouldn't affect your perception of a child.

For what seems the 100th time: an annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marraige never took place due to a defect in form or intent.

A while back, a beautiful Lutheran lady appeared on the TV program "60 minutes". She said that she was suing the Catholic Church for fraud and deception. She had married her Catholic husband in the Catholic Church about 15 years ago and she had agreed to all of the requirements laid down by the Church, including to bring up her children as Catholics. She faithfully observed and fulfilled all these requirements to the best of her ability including sending her children to Catholic schools, bringing them to Mass every Sunday, teaching them their Catholic prayers, even though she was a Lutheran. Everything was going just fine for 15 years. Then all of a sudden after 15 years, her husband started seeing a younger woman and was unfaithful to the marriage. He then said that he wanted an annulment so that he could marry the younger woman and receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. He applied for the annulment, and the Catholic Church gave him his annulment. The Lutheran lady was furious that the Catholic Church had deceived her into believing that the ceremony that she went through at the Catholic Church was a marriage ceremony, when now, after fifteen years, the Catholic Church says they were never married in a Church blessed rite. But this is contrary to her Lutheran faith to live with a man for 15 years and not be living in a Church blessed marriage. For 15 years, the Church, the local priest and her husband never said anything about their marriage being invalid. There never was any question of defect of form or intent for 15 years, and the question would never had come up, except that her husband had suddenly been unfaithful to the marriage. She said that annulments were dishonest on their face, and the honest way of dissolving a marriage was to simply declare a divorce. She could have accepted the idea that she was married with the blessing of the Church, but now it is time to get a divorce. A divorce would be all right in her eyes, because it would enable her to say that she had lived with a man, but with the blessing of the Church for 15 years. Now however, the Catholic Church says that they were never married in a Church ceremony, and it gives her husband the right to marry a younger woman and receive Holy Communion, all with the blessing of the Catholic Church and with the Catholic Church saying that this second marriage was truly the first Church marriage. This means that her character as a good Lutheran and Christian lady has been blackened by the declaration of the Catholic Church that she was living with a man for all this time, but she was not validly married to him.

For what seems the 100th time: an annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marraige never took place due to a defect in form or intent.

A while back, a beautiful Lutheran lady appeared on the TV program "60 minutes". She said that she was suing the Catholic Church for fraud and deception. She had married her Catholic husband in the Catholic Church about 15 years ago and she had agreed to all of the requirements laid down by the Church, including to bring up her children as Catholics. She faithfully observed and fulfilled all these requirements to the best of her ability including sending her children to Catholic schools, bringing them to Mass every Sunday, teaching them their Catholic prayers, even though she was a Lutheran. Everything was going just fine for 15 years. Then all of a sudden after 15 years, her husband started seeing a younger woman and was unfaithful to the marriage. He then said that he wanted an annulment so that he could marry the younger woman and receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. He applied for the annulment, and the Catholic Church gave him his annulment. The Lutheran lady was furious that the Catholic Church had deceived her into believing that the ceremony that she went through at the Catholic Church was a marriage ceremony, when now, after fifteen years, the Catholic Church says they were never married in a Church blessed rite. But this is contrary to her Lutheran faith to live with a man for 15 years and not be living in a Church blessed marriage. For 15 years, the Church, the local priest and her husband never said anything about their marriage being invalid. There never was any question of defect of form or intent for 15 years, and the question would never had come up, except that her husband had suddenly been unfaithful to the marriage. She said that annulments were dishonest on their face, and the honest way of dissolving a marriage was to simply declare a divorce. She could have accepted the idea that she was married with the blessing of the Church, but now it is time to get a divorce. A divorce would be all right in her eyes, because it would enable her to say that she had lived with a man, but with the blessing of the Church for 15 years. Now however, the Catholic Church says that they were never married in a Church ceremony, and it gives her husband the right to marry a younger woman and receive Holy Communion, all with the blessing of the Catholic Church and with the Catholic Church saying that this second marriage was truly the first Church marriage. This means that her character as a good Lutheran and Christian lady has been blackened by the declaration of the Catholic Church that she was living with a man for all this time, but she was not validly married to him.

but here we have children now who were conceived in a once loving marriage now find themselves in a 'bastard' state of affairs.

And what does that matter and why is that such a bad thing? My parents had me before they were married. I'm an "illegitimate bastard." Why do you act as if it is something so sad to be ashamed of? I find it very offensive actually when people say things like this, acting as if it were so serious or bad or stigmatized. Get over it. There is no such thing as legitimacy or illegitimacy. Just because two adults failed at marriage shouldn't affect your perception of a child.

It doesn't. However, it does affect the child's perception of marriage, as they are now told what they thought was a marriage, wasn't.

Btw, in your personal case, IIRC, your parents later married. Under both the law and the Vatican's canon (illegitimacy doesn't come up AFAIK in the Orthodox canons), you are not therefore "an illegitimate bastard."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Wait, why are we clamoring for the reinstatement of classifying kids as illegitimate? It was a ridiculous law to begin with. And its not like it is Patristic teaching or anything, is it (I HOPE NOT!)? Isn't it some form of misguided puritanism?

one would have to investigate the relationship between the disappearance of the stigma of bearing children out of wedlock, and the rise in the numbers of children born out of wedlock-now approaching half in most of what is called Christendom. 55–74% in Latin America (although the non-existence of common law marriage has a part in pushing up the numbers).

But the stigma should be on the parents, not the child. I hate it when a child is deprived of education because of something he/she never did. Back in the day illegitimate children were barred from Catholic Schools. This was in the Philippines when good schools meant private Catholic Schools. I knew somebody who was denied as such.